The trial of the five conscientious objectors refusing to be drafted
into an occupation armyresumed
today (18 September) at the military court in Jaffa. For long hours, the
prosecutor, Captain Yaron Kostelitz, cross- examined the defendants
Haggai Matar and Matan Kaminer. Both defendants rejected the
prosecutor's claim that conscience is nothing but a nice word meant to
enable anyone to do whatever he or she wishes. They repeated their
explanations of why their objection to be drafted is motivated by deep
conscientious considerations.

Haggai
Matar noted that he did not agree with the conceptual characterizations
offered by the prosecutor, regarding such notions as pacifism, political
refusal and conscientious objection. The prosecutor presented him with a
list of hypothetical situations, in order to find out under what
conditions he would agree to be drafted into the Israeli army. In his
answer, Matar described the complexity of his conscientious decision and
the way it is anchored in current circumstances. "I cannot sum up
my opposition in one short sentence. At the moment, I see evil and
inhumane acts committed by the Israeli army, and since its actions are
inhumane, immoral and in my opinion also illegal, I conscientiously
refuse to take any part in this army under present circumstances."

Fantastic hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant to the present
situation, Matar said, and it's impossible to answer such abstract
questions or refer to descriptions of situations devoid of any context.
Replying to the prosecutor's claim, that what was described by him as
evil was confirmed as legal by the Israeli High Court of Justice, Matar
noted that some of the HCJ's decisions are indeed illegal according to
international law. When the prosecutor attempted to characterize his
refusal as political rather than conscientious, Matar replied that his
position is both political and conscientious, and that it is impossible
to break these two spheres apart - yet a distinction must be made
between a political stand and a position taken by a political party.
"Conscience isn't a party platform," said Matar, "and its
dictates are much clearer regarding disapproval and refusal than
regarding obligations to commit certain acts."

The
questions posed to Matan Kaminer were almost identical to those posed to
Haggai Matar. Kaminer repeated and emphasized the principles he
enumerated in his original testimony- those principles which led him to
refuse the draft. "I oppose violence in general," he said;
"only extreme conditions could make the use of violence legitimate,
and such extreme conditions are far from existing here and now. If we
leave the Occupied Territories completely, if we allow the establishment
of a viable independent Palestinian state, and if we live in peace and
equality alongside this state, cooperating with it economically and
culturally, then the existential situation in the region will be
drastically different. There will be no suicide bombs and no violent
actions committed by Palestinians against Israeli citizens. The
mandatory draft will be irrelevant, but if there is still need of an
army under these conditions, then I'll be ready to take part in
it."

Kaminer emphasized that in his opinion the state should - as
far as possible - treat any consciences with respect and tolerance, but
that his own conscientious motivations for refusal, ensuing from a
humanist, rationalist and democratic conception, are essentially
different than other motivations for refusal, such as those based on
religious and nationalistic grounds. "I love this country and the
people living in it, and I want to keep living in it and change it, so
that it is a better place to live in. My refusal is part of this
change."

Both
Matar and Kaminer, replying to the prosecutor's questions regarding the
duty to obey the law in a democratic state, said that Israel is not
fully democratic. A state ruling over 3.5 million people denied the
right to vote, cannot presume to be a state whose decisions are all
reached in a democratic procedure. South Africa during Apartheid wasn't
a democratic state, they said, and the classical Greek democracy was
faulty since only men of certain status enjoyed the right to be
represented, whereas the rest of the Polis inhabitants did not.
"Either let the inhabitants in the occupied territories the right
to vote or stop ruling them," said Kaminer.

The
next court session, with the cross-examination of the three other
defendants, Shimri Tzameret, Adam Maor and Noam Bahat, will be held on
October 20th, 2003 .